Claire L. Evans’ projectPolytopiaThe human species is rapidly and indisputably moving towards the technological singularity. The cadence of the flow of information and innovation in...Now playingSpaceCollectiveWhere forward thinking terrestrials share ideas and information about the state of the species, their planet and the universe, living the lives of science fiction.IntroductionFeaturing Powers of Ten by Charles and Ray Eames, based on an idea by Kees Boeke.

One of Buckminster Fuller's most interesting conceits was his dislike of specialization, which he likened to a kind of intellectual prison, restraining "bright" people from truly understanding the complex, and general, systems of which they were a part. After all, he argued, what causes extinction in the animal kingdom? Overspecialization. Of course, it's logical, and it's s problem we see over and over again in human history, from the Industrial Revolution displacing specialized factory workers to the often daunting gap of comprehension between the social and "hard" sciences. As soon as we become specialists in a single subject, we tend to lose interest in, or the capacity to cope with, other subjects, and in the greater whole. Tunnel vision, if you will.

As it turns out, this particular Bucky ramble has considerable scientific credibility now that the fields of complexity theory and biological evolution are coming head-to-head. Microbiologist Carl Woese, talking to Wired, put it this way: "Twentieth-century biology was structured according to a linear, Newtonian worldview. Linear thinking is not the kind of thinking that's needed to study evolution. It doesn't help you understand the nature of systems. " In other words, evolution — the success and development of species — is not just a linear process, driven by specific biologically advantageous genetic traits, but a complex process, one ruled by yet-to-be-quantified rules of complexity and emergence. With emergence phenomena, evolution occurs not only in individuals, but in systems and groups; if we consider an ant or bee colony as a kind of "superorganism" that develops independently from its members, then the individual characteristics of a bee are only one part of a complex, evolutionary entity — the hive. And, as it turns out, increased levels of complexity do not slow or hinder the evolutionary process.

In suit, biologists now find it makes scientific sense to examine human beings as emergent systems — "superorganisms" of millions of molecules, much like bees in a hive. From there, It's not much of a conceptual leap to apply that thinking to human groups; i.e. we are all involved with one another, on an evolutionary level, just as all our cells work together to cobble together the thing we call "life." After all, we are one of the few species to evolve social systems.

In any case, Buckminster Fuller's points about humans having "innate comprehensivity" and the human race being a giant system living on "Spaceship Earth" suddenly seem woozily prescient. Carl Woese again: "Man is the one who's undergoing this incredible evolution now...the social processes by which man is evolving are creating a whole new level of organization."

It begs the question: what are these social processes "by which man is evolving?" Dare we assume that Woese is referring, in part, to the Internet? It's certainly tempting to compare the web's self-navigating push-button organization with these "superorganisms" of the current biological discourse. If the social system in a colony of leafcutter ants can compel them to build magnificent chambered nests underground despite the fact that their individual ant brains don't amount to much, what can our social systems do for us? Despite the oil-slick of drivel floating atop the quotidian Internet, look at what we have at our fingertips: instant self-publishing, the capacity to push information quickly to people across the globe, tools for mass organization, immediate answers to questions it would have taken our parents weeks to research. Our own version of the leafcutter's underground castles doesn't seem so far off.

Buckminster Fuller might have agreed.

"The computer as a superspecialist can persevere, day and night, day after day, in picking out the pink from the blue at superhumanly sustainable speeds. The computer can also operate in degrees of cold or heat at which man would perish. Man is going to be displaced altogether as a specialist by the computer. Man himself is being forced to reestablish, employ, and enjoy his innate 'comprehensivity.' Coping with the totality of Spaceship Earth and universe is ahead for all of us. Evolution is apparently intent that man fulfill a much greater destiny than that of being a simple muscle and reflex machine — a slave automaton — automation displaces the automaton."

The saving grace of our species, the "evolutionary antibody to the extinction of humanity through specialization," in Fuller's view, was the computer: a machine (or machines) designed solely to follow specialized, technical pursuits to their logical ends. As soon as we no longer have to concern ourselves with the specific aspects of our fields of study, and we can outsource the menial tasks which tie up our minds, he argued, we can become generalists again. This may not be a matter of choice: as specialists, we're nothing compared to computers. It's essentially an evolutionary decision. Of course, talking about evolutionary emergence and widespread computer use in the same breath smacks a little of the technological singularity, but that's a subject for another post.

Singularity aside, when we hand over the keys to the computers, we're ostensibly left with the capacity to pursue real, comprehensive, systems-understanding intelligence. Which is our real strong suit — the intellectual style of a curious child before being socialized. And, if current complexity science is correct, it may be to humanity's evolutionary advantage to stay this way: curious, general, and collaborative.

ApolloSat, Apr 2, 2011Permanent linkA very well-written and interesting essay.
In your view, what are some ways that our our institutions (particularly our elementary, secondary, and post-secondary educational institutions) could change to be more supportive of this kind of generalized or universal curiosity and interest? I ask this because, as a young adult, I find it intimidating to face the task of gradual 'professional integration' into a society whose institutions, as Rene pointed out in his post regarding the Digital Renaissance, fail to capture the inherent potential and energy which has emerged out of the 21st-century information paradigm, and — perhaps more importantly — the burgeoning social / community consciousness which it has catalyzed, and whose continuing evolution is underway (and for which, finally, we need look no further than ourselves within the SC community). Thanks :)

Information Collection and Use by SpaceCollective.org
SpaceCollective.org collects user submitted information such as name and email address to authenticate users and to send notifications to those users relating to the SpaceCollective.org service. SpaceCollective.org also collects other profile data including but not limited to: gender and age in order to assist users in finding and communicating with each other.

SpaceCollective.org also logs non-personally-identifiable information including IP address, profile information, aggregate user data, and browser type, from users and visitors to the site. This data is used to manage the Website, track usage and improve the Website services. User IP addresses are recorded for security and monitoring purposes.

User Profile information including members' pictures and first names are displayed to people in order to facilitate user interaction with the SpaceCollective.org service. Email addresses are used to send notifications related to the service. Email addresses are not shared or displayed to people within a user's personal network or anywhere else on the website. Users within a personal network communicate on SpaceCollective.org with each other through the SpaceCollective.org service, without disclosing their email addresses.

To facilitate the connection between members on the service, SpaceCollective.org allows users to search for other members using display names. We may also use a user's email address to send updates or news regarding the service.

Use of Cookies
SpaceCollective.org uses cookies to store visitors' preferences and to record session information for many purposes, including ensuring that visitors are not repeatedly offered the same Web page content based on browser type and user profile information. We do not link the information we store in cookies to any personally identifiable information you submit while on our site. You may be able to configure your browser to accept or reject all or some cookies, or notify you when a cookie is set - each browser is different, so check the "Help" menu of your browser to learn how to change your cookie preferences - however, you must enable cookies from SpaceCollective.org in order to use most functions on the site.

Links
SpaceCollective.org contains links to sites. SpaceCollective.org is not responsible for the privacy policies and/or practices on other sites. When linking to another site a user should read the privacy policy stated on that site. Our privacy policy only governs information collected on SpaceCollective.org.

Correcting/Updating or Removing Information
SpaceCollective.org users may modify or remove any of their personal information at any time.

Email Choice/Opt-out
Members who no longer wish to receive notifications may choose not to by selecting the appropriate checkbox in their personal account settings.

Security
SpaceCollective.org member accounts are secured by member-created passwords. SpaceCollective.org takes precautions to ensure that member account information is kept private. We use reasonable measures to protect member information that is stored within our database, and we restrict access to member information to those employees who need access to perform their job functions, such as our customer service personnel and technical staff. Please note that we cannot guarantee the security of member account information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of member information at any time.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information SpaceCollective.org Collects
Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, SpaceCollective.org will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary: (1) to conform to legal requirements or to respond to a subpoena, search warrant or other legal process received by SpaceCollective.org; (2) to protect the safety of members of the public and users of the service. SpaceCollective.org reserves the right to transfer personal information to a successor in interest that acquires rights to that information as a result of the sale of SpaceCollective.org or substantially all of its assets to that successor in interest.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy
From time to time we may make changes to our privacy policy. If we make changes, we will post them on our site to make users aware of what the changes are so users will always be aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and when we may disclose it. A User is bound by any minor changes to the policy when she or he uses the site after those changes have been posted. If, however, we are going to use users' personally identifiable information in a manner materially different from that stated at the time of collection, we will notify by posting a notice on our Website for 30 days.

SpaceCollective is a joint initiative of filmmaker Rene Daalder and designer Folkert Gorter. Daalder is the project's main author and creator of The Future of Everything. Gorter is the site's interaction designer and the curator of the Gallery. System architecture and technology created by Josh Pangell. The Future of Everything episodes are edited by Aaron Ohlmann and produced by American Scenes Inc; executive producer: Joseph Kaufman.